Take the Manulife T4A form sent in. That is a lie. That might be forgery. Criminal Code s. 366 (I think, been some time since I reviewed it) says to place false information on a document to fool someone is a crime.

What crime? Society must trust in documents. If we don't trust what we read, in an official document sent to CRA that affects our tax situation, who can we trust? The rule of lw depends on everyone following it, geneerally. I used to be a payroll tax colletor. What Manulife is doing is the same as a Payroll Accounting firm. They must put the actual payer on the forms, according to the Canadian Payroll Accounting agency. Yet Manulife & Canada flout the Income Tax Act. The actual payer, not the financial intermediary must plae their name on the forms. (National Bank of Canada v Canada FCA 2003: National Bank lost. They took CRA to court when they were using Manulife to hide their role to avoid EI premiums. The judge said, "Not only is Manulife not an 3rd party insurer, it is not an insurer. It acts as the finanical intermediary for the employer."

SISIP is supposed to be "own occupation" Long Term Disability insurance.

Earnings capacity Loss Benefit (ELB) is a copy of SISIP, including the automatic qualification if medically released.

However, ELB gets away with that part of the deal in that they use SISIP to "complement" ELB. I think they should look up the definition of "complement."

I'm adding this as a preamble to "supplement" or "complement" my earlier post where I compared the definitions of the words.

Here is where I am going:

1. SISIP now covers "own occupation;" nearly exclusively;

2. ELB now covers "any occupation," BUT the NVC states that we have the RIGHT to ELB after medical release via the 120 day clause!

We are supposed to get the same as the Pension Act pensioner. If we don't they get a way more significant benefit from the same amount of contribution.

They paid:

1. The Right to sue for the pension;

2. Cash & service for the SISIP LTD.

We paid:

1. The Right to sue for the NVC benefits;

2. Cash & service for SISIP LTD.

So how come we can't get what we paid for? The Pension Act pension was replaced by a "suite of benefits." We had no choice about that decision. They could have left the pension in place. They chose to meddle with the design.

The hidden design here, what I am trying to expose, is that the NVC was designed SOLELY to get rid of the SISIP + pension problem.

What they failed to realize or knowingly ignored was that the SISIP + pension deal is the Bradburn Rule. That was the way it was supposed to be since 1976 when they added on duty injuries to SISIP LTD. Their negligence landed us all in this position. Had they done it right back then, everyone would accept it as normal.

As they did it wrong, everyone accepts the WRONG way as normal & that makes my job extremely hard.I used to be a teacher, allow me to "teach" SISIP & VAC a lesson:

Complement (Oxford Dictionaries)

A thing that contributes extra features to something else in such a way as to improve or emphasize its quality: local ales provide the perfect complement to fine food

Supplement (Oxford Dictionaries)

A thing added to something else in order to complete or enhance it: the handout is a supplement to the official manual

Federal Long Term Disability insurances, like SISIP LTD, are meant to supplement other benefits.

Canada Pension Plan is stated to supplement other benefits in the Canada Pension Plan Act preamble.

So if I get SISIP LTD & it is designed to "supplement" other benefits, like CPP, it is meant to be added to something else to complete it or enhance it. As it is a monetary benefit, this can only mean more money with both benefits than with just the one benefit. That logic is unassailable.

However, SISIP LTD claims the Right to clawback the value of the Canada Pension Plan Disability insurance. Let us, for example, say I was getting $2,000 SISIP LTD. Then I get $1,000 CPPD.

In SISIP's reality, I am "supplemented" by the fact that I now get $1,000 from SISIP (they save $1,000 at my expense) & $1,000 from CPPD, for a total of $2,000.

This can, at best, be described as STATUS QUO but for the fact that the cost & aggravation of applying for the CPPD is oppressive. We pay premiums into CPP to get CPPD if we become disabled. We pay premiums into SISIP LTD to "supplement" CPPD. Gaining NOTHING is not able to be described by the most able wordsmith, as a "SUPPLEMENT."

Maybe they mean that SISIP LTD is meant to "complement" CPPD. The Oxford Dictionary states this means to contribute extra features to improve or emphasize its quality. Sounds like the exact same thing as "supplement."

Using the same figures, $2,000 SISIP LTD & $1,000 CPPD:

SISIP pays $1,000 (they "complement" by reducing the SISIP LTD by the same amount as CPPD pays) & CPPD pays $1,000 for a total of $2,000. Obviously, this is not a "complement," either.

Seems that their definition of "complement" & "supplement" require them to attend remedial lesson after school.

Fortunately for Canadian disabled veterans, there are readily accessible sources that allow an understanding of what goes through the heads of the government workers that administer these plans.

In 2003, there was a case where Sun Life sued Ryan in Nova Scotia Supreme Court (Sun Life v Ryan NSSC 2003) & parol evidence was used. Normally, when a judge must interpret a contract, the "four corners" rule applies. The agreed upon terms only can be judged, not the draft material.

In the parol evidence, there was a letter from a Treasury Board Secret where a MORON stated that the Sun Life Disability Insurance plan was meant to supplement other benefits, "in other words to be subtracted from the Sun Life benefits."

Obviously, this person had less than the best education experience if he believed that "supplement" means "subtract."

Let us all tell CRA that we will "supplement" our taxes this year by a voluntary "supplement" using the same definition.

Won't they be surprised when we get more taxes back & not pay in more as they expect!

The scary thing here is that the judge in the Ryan NSSC 2003 case did not say, "Hang on a second there. read that last piece back to me. Are you serious? Are you high? Supplement does not mean "subtract," it means "add! Case dismissed, I rule in Ms Ryan's favour & award punitive damages for the IDIOTIC position taken by Treasury Board Secretariat."

Unfortunately, that did not happen so we are still stuck with the STUPID procedure where we pay into more than one benefit plan only to lose the value of one of the benefits!

Okay, so are you saying lawnboy that SSIP LTD is deducting my pennision amount from the 75% total and they are paying in fact less then 75% because of my penision deduction.

I hope I am right in what your saying now because I view it like. Let's say I worked full time at a job, I would get paid 100% from my current job and still paying into CPP, but I would still get my monthly CF penision amount till I am 65 with no penalty.

So, why can SSIP not pay my 75% military monthly salary without deducting my monthly CF penision. I paid into both plans, but they now penaltize me monthly.

I think a light switch went on for me lawnboy. Hopefully you can see what I am talking about.

The bottom line is that Earnings capacity Loss Benefit (ELB) is a Capital asset. I was just reading that in the 2010 VAC report. Yet they continue to tax it.

I have my doubts about ELB. 1. Is it insurance;2. Is it indemnity insurance?3. How much is held in the Actuarial reserves required by law for insurance? (I suspect none)4. Is it non-indemnity & contributory insurance?5. If it is non-indemnity, can they allege they can clawback other benefits?6. If it is allowed to clawback, is the clawbacks limited to the same event type clawbacks as listed in Pension Act s. 25?7. If clawbacks are allowed, shouldn't they be limited to 50% of the amount, as per Pension Act s. 26?8. Can ELB claim the right to take the Pension Act pension when the pension is the senior Act, established in 1919 versus the NVC's 2006 inception date? (for the Toth case)9. Can ELB claim past wages held in trust like the CF pension, as they are not income for the same period that the ELB is paid?

I think I know the answers to all of these. The inspirations I had just this evening were:

A. SISIP/ELB trys to appropriate the value of the right to sue by saying it will offset the value of the Tort awards, WCB & VAC pension (in the past);

B. As stated in a question above, I think ELB has no Actuarial Reserves established so it is NOT insurance. Even WCB has to establish Actuarial Reserves

LawnBoy77777 wrote:The bottom line is that Earnings capacity Loss Benefit (ELB) is a Capital asset. I was just reading that in the 2010 VAC report. Yet they continue to tax it.

I have my doubts about ELB. 1. Is it insurance;2. Is it indemnity insurance?3. How much is held in the Actuarial reserves required by law for insurance? (I suspect none)4. Is it non-indemnity & contributory insurance?5. If it is non-indemnity, can they allege they can clawback other benefits?6. If it is allowed to clawback, is the clawbacks limited to the same event type clawbacks as listed in Pension Act s. 25?7. If clawbacks are allowed, shouldn't they be limited to 50% of the amount, as per Pension Act s. 26?8. Can ELB claim the right to take the Pension Act pension when the pension is the senior Act, established in 1919 versus the NVC's 2006 inception date? (for the Toth case)9. Can ELB claim past wages held in trust like the CF pension, as they are not income for the same period that the ELB is paid?

I think I know the answers to all of these. The inspirations I had just this evening were:

A. SISIP/ELB trys to appropriate the value of the right to sue by saying it will offset the value of the Tort awards, WCB & VAC pension (in the past);

B. As stated in a question above, I think ELB has no Actuarial Reserves established so it is NOT insurance. Even WCB has to establish Actuarial Reserves

"Participation in the Rehabilitation Program opens the door to the Financial Benefits Program, which compensates for the economic impact a service-related injury has on the Veteran’s ability to earn income."

- Compensate means to pay in full for loss- the Andrews SCC 1978 case says that it is not income which is lost but earnings capacity, a Capital asset.

(ii) Length of working life: The capitalization of future earning capacity must be based not on the shortened life expectancy but rather on the expected working life span prior to the accident. It is the loss of the income-earning capacity which existed prior to the acci­dent for which the appellant must be compensated.

I am on SSIP LTD, injury SDA in Afghanistan. I applied for ELB months ago, waiting to see what they do. I did have my case manger call me, and asked what is up with you applying for ELB? I told him if SSIP does not raise to 90% then I want to be transferred to ELB. He understood my point and chuckled.

If ELB and SSIP is mirrored after each other they are just creating jobs for themselves. When one is injured and released 3B there should be only one route to take for path of the member. Why did they not talk about that in their 5 points. The 5 points where like starting over and did not address the points needed to fix VAC.

SSIP is a gold mine for Manulife, they don't want to lose it. Only plus is they will be more fair or least likely to kick you off their gravy train.

In regards to spouses not getting the correct info from VAC, well we don't either. But the member can sign his rights to contact VAC to his spouse and they can navigate the system. They always can use fourms like here to get to know the frustrating system.

2 systems = extra bullshit2 types of Vets = unfair NVC

I really don't see the system fixing its self. The system was created to help Vets but is now the enemy.

2. SISIP for on duty injury + DA + ELB + PIA + PIAS as SISIP is bought with paying the premiums; ELB is bought with injury in service & (maybe, the right to sue); DA, ditto; PIA, ditto.

Think of it like this: SISIP + pension was OK so SISIP + NVC is OK as the NVC replaced the pension.

The NVC replacement of the pension was a trasparent attempt to get around paying both pension + SISIP imo. Nothing more. That solved half of the problem. SISIP + pension is impossible with no pension!

However, that ignores the principle that you should get what you pay for. If SISIP is deducted from ELB, that meant you paid the SISIP LTD premiums for NOTHING. If ELB is deducted from SISIP, you gave up the right to sue for NOTHING!

This all comes back to the Bradburn Rule, a law that has been in place since 1875. A person who buys insurance is entitled to get it in addition to damages for personal injury. Ratych SCC 1990 & Cunningham SCC 1994 restate Bradburn.

So, how did the Army let the government change in mid stream. I joined with a thought I would get a penision, If I got injured. Now I see i got injuried in the wrong year. Now, I remember those boring long lectures in Gagetown and was wondering what the heck is this about, they said straight up its a better system. What a mistake, that's why I don't trust generals in positions such as Veterans Affairs. They have the big pay, don't no what it's like to live month to month waiting for the deposit.